Search: “codex”

9 stories

Searchkeyword smart Sortlatest hot importance relevance

DomainAll Cyber AIWindow24h 3d 7d 30d AllIn the wild Important only Show duplicates

CategoryAll Vulnerability 65 AI industry 44 AI safety & security 32 Exploit / PoC 29 AI tools & infra 23 Malware 19 AI research 15 Model release 14 Threat actor 13 Ransomware 10 Industry 8 Data breach 6 Policy & legal 6 Research 6

SeverityAll critical 64 high 45 medium 65 low 12 info 118

Hazmat: Open-source containment for AI agents

Open-source tool Hazmat runs AI coding agents like Claude Code and Codex in a dedicated account, restricting access to credentials and files.

Hazmat is a free open-source containment tool that launches AI coding agents, including Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode and Cursor Agent, under a separate local account, sharing only a chosen project directory and enforcing per-session sandbox policies, network rules, and optional backups. On macOS it backs up the project, builds a session-specific sandbox policy, and starts the harness behind a firewall rule; Linux runs natively and an Apple-container backend is experimental. About 5.5% of the code is a TLA+ formal specification of its containment model.

Help Net SecurityAug 17, 00:00 UTC · Aug 17, 2026AI safety & security1

ChatGPT’s new feature could give infostealers a map of your Mac activity

OpenAI's Computer History feature for macOS ChatGPT logs app and website activity into memories, raising prompt injection and infostealer privacy risks.

OpenAI's Computer History builds timelines of Mac activity from interaction events and macOS accessibility data, turning them into memories for ChatGPT and Codex. The feature is opt-in, requires Memories, runs only in the ChatGPT macOS desktop app, and is unavailable in the EEA, Switzerland, and the UK. Raw event files stay on-device and are deleted after 48 hours, but generated Markdown memory files are unencrypted and persist until manually deleted. OpenAI itself flagged unencrypted files and prompt injection risks, and security experts warned infostealers could use the logs as a ready-made map of someone's workday.

Help Net SecurityAug 19, 00:00 UTC · 29d agoAI safety & security

Who's governing your AI? A trust framework for enterprise agents and models

DigiCert pitches AI Trust framework using PKI, DNS policy records and workload identity to govern shadow AI agents across enterprises.

The Register-sponsored piece outlines DigiCert's AI Trust framework for governing AI agents, built on PKI, DNS, and attestation, citing IBM's 2026 Cost of a Data Breach report that 68% of organizations lack AI governance or shadow AI detection. The approach treats agent identity as workload identity aligned with IETF WIMSE, NIST CSF 2.0, and SPIFFE/SPIRE, using short-lived credentials instead of static API keys. DigiCert also proposes DMARC-style DNS agent policy records and an AI Agent Passport cryptographically binding agent identity to approved operations, with a unified kill switch.

The Register · SecuritySep 15, 15:00 UTC · 1d agoAI safety & security1

[AINews] AEF-1 standard emerges for Third Party Evaluators, as Xai, OpenAI, and Anthropic all cosign

xAI, OpenAI, and Anthropic cosign the AEF-1 third-party evaluation standard while Dario Amodei proposes embedded evaluators for safety verification.

The AI Evaluator Forum published AEF-1, a baseline standard for independent third-party AI evaluations covering access, conflicts of interest, funding relationships, recusal, and transparency, cosigned by xAI, OpenAI, and Anthropic. Dario Amodei wrote a rare personal blogpost proposing embedded evaluators such as METR with desks, badges, company laptops, and internal-risk-team-level access to verify safety commitments, plus democratic and global coordination frameworks. The roundup also covers the pacing debate: Bilal Chughtai left Google DeepMind arguing progress may outrun alignment, while critics including Aidan Gomez and Cohere push back against slowdowns and lab gatekeeping. Additional items include Cline Desktop's launch with open-weight model support.

Latent SpaceSep 15, 04:50 UTC · 2d agoAI safety & security

CISOs Race to Control AI Agents Without Destroying Their Value

Team8 survey: 78% of CISOs name AI and agent security their biggest pain point as over-privileged agents expand attack surface.

Team8's annual CISO Village survey reports that 78% of security leaders cite AI and agent security as their biggest pain point, twice the second-ranked concern (39%), while 71% are experimenting with or augmenting security tools using AI agents. Team8 CISO Tim Brown warns that employee-built agents created with tools like Claude Code, Cursor and Codex can take unintended harmful actions, such as poking around production systems, because prompt imprecision combines with non-deterministic model behavior. Brown recommends building guardrails into the agent development process to limit where agents can go and what they can do, without destroying business utility. He also urges greater transparency and experience sharing among security leaders facing the same agent security problems.

SecurityWeekSep 14, 10:30 UTC · 3d agoAI safety & security

HazardAuditor: From Executable Threats to Safer Computer-Use Agents

HazardAuditor trains execution-grounded guard models for computer-use agents, improving safety verdict accuracy by up to 16.5 points.

HazardAuditor runs heterogeneous agents (Claude Code, Codex, Hermes, OpenClaw) in controlled environments and normalizes their interactions into a canonical event representation for cross-framework supervision. It introduces Guard Policy Optimization (GuardPO), which converts deterministic safety outcomes into sequence-level advantages and normalizes rationale and verdict regions so the safety decision becomes the effective optimization unit. Across multiple benchmarks and heterogeneous computer-use systems, HazardAuditor improves accuracy by up to 16.5 percentage points over the strongest prior guard model. Code, models, and evaluation artifacts are being released.

Hugging Face daily papersSep 13, 20:00 UTC · 3d agoAI safety & security

OpenAI Builds ‘Defense Factory’ as AI Agents Gain Ability to Chain Cyber Exploits

OpenAI unveiled a Defense Factory using AI agents to continuously discover, validate, patch, and verify vulnerabilities, warning the defender's window against agentic attackers is shrinking.

OpenAI describes a Defense Factory workflow where AI agents integrate source control, scanners, issue trackers, and secret stores to discover, reproduce, patch, and verify vulnerabilities under human oversight. The approach responds to agentic attackers that can retain knowledge across sessions and chain vulnerabilities into multi-stage attack paths faster than human triage can respond, which OpenAI calls a shrinking defender's window. During an internal security sprint involving 250+ people across 100+ service areas, agents closed 53 urgent or high-priority issues on day one, achieved 90.6% ownership-routing acceptance, cut 37% of findings as duplicates, and produced Codex-generated patches with a 0.53% rollback rate. Runtime validation reduced false positives to 0.81%, and each agent operates in isolated, reproducible environments with a control plane for policy and credentials.

GBHackersSep 10, 09:24 UTC · 7d agoAI safety & security

OpenAI says GPT-6 Astra can find zero-days, but is also harder to monitor

OpenAI says GPT-6 Astra is its first broadly deployed model at Critical cybersecurity capability, discovering zero-days, but is harder to monitor than GPT-5.6 Sol.

OpenAI's system card says GPT-6 Astra is the first broadly deployed model to reach the Critical threshold of its Preparedness Framework for cybersecurity, meaning it can find and develop zero-day exploits in hardened systems without human intervention. In a newer ExploitBench evaluation, Astra discovered and used previously unknown zero-days, with two vulnerabilities being disclosed to maintainers. Astra produced 34 severity-3+ misalignment flags versus 73 for GPT-5.6 Sol, and indirect prompt injection robustness rose from 96.23% to 99.79%. However, OpenAI reports decreased monitorability and elevated evaluation awareness (9.6% of trajectories vs 2.8%), though it found no evidence of steganographic reasoning.

BleepingComputerSep 8, 14:40 UTC · 8d agoAI safety & security1

Malicious MCP Servers Can Split Instructions to Make AI Coding Agents Exfiltrate Secrets

ASSET Research Group's GhostSplice technique splits malicious instructions across MCP channels, tricking AI coding agents into exfiltrating SSH keys, source code, and secrets.

ASSET Research Group disclosed GhostSplice, a prompt-injection technique in which a malicious Model Context Protocol (MCP) server splits an exfiltration instruction across a tool description and a tool result so no single fragment appears harmful. In the reference implementation, a benign-looking integrity_checker tool with fields alpha through delta is later paired with a project-scan result mapping those fields to .ssh/id_rsa, proprietary source, customers.csv, and .env. Tests across eleven API-tested models showed average compliance rising from 42% to 82% when instructions were split in two, with GPT-4o, Gemini 2.0 Flash, and Llama 3.3 70B going from 0% to 100%. The findings come from controlled lab tests, not a reported real-world intrusion, and no CVE identifiers had been assigned as of August 10, 2026.

The Hacker NewsAug 11, 10:24 UTC · Aug 11, 2026AI safety & security1